{"id":167692,"date":"2026-09-08T14:44:03","date_gmt":"2026-09-08T14:44:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/?p=167692"},"modified":"2026-09-08T14:46:28","modified_gmt":"2026-09-08T14:46:28","slug":"mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling","title":{"rendered":"Mexico\u2019s 30% Alternatives Ceiling"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
Mercados privados<\/h5>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Mexico's 30% Alternatives Ceiling<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Why AFORE Capacity Keeps Rising While Allocations Do Not, and What Now Determines the Regional Institutional Bid<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

For most of the past decade, the constraint on Mexican institutional private markets allocation had a single name: the regulatory limit. The AFOREs were capped in what they could hold in illiquid form, the cap sat below international practice, and the industry’s advocacy was organised accordingly. That campaign has succeeded. The AFOREs may now allocate up to 30 percent of portfolios to structured assets, following an additional 10 percent tranche approved in October 2024 with a domestic orientation layered onto an original 20 percent that had been used predominantly for international exposure. In round terms, roughly two thirds of total capacity remains available for international deployment and roughly one third is intended to support local opportunities.<\/p>

The permission has arrived. The allocation has not. Combined exposure to CKDs and CERPIs, the vehicles through which the AFOREs access domestic and international private markets respectively, declined from approximately 8.9 percent of portfolios in December 2024 to around 8.3 percent by the end of April 2026. Independent estimates put international exposure at roughly 5.3 percent by March 2026, up from about 4.5 percent in 2024, while domestic exposure fell from about 4.4 percent to roughly 3.0 percent. Against a domestic tranche designed to channel pension savings into Mexican infrastructure, energy, real estate and private credit, that is close to the opposite of the policy intent, and it occurred without any change in the rules.<\/p>

This paper argues that the industry has spent its energy on the constraint that stopped binding and has not built a commercial model for the three that replaced it. The first is supply, and it has begun to be discussed. Pension capital at this scale underwrites managers rather than assets, and the shortage is not of Mexican projects but of Mexican platforms with the governance, team tenure, documented process and realization history that institutional diligence requires. The vehicle formation data makes the scale mismatch concrete: across 2025 the market saw two credit CKDs and ten CERPIs issued, representing commitments of roughly 2.6 billion dollars, against a system approaching half a trillion. The second is proof of realization, and it is the least flattering number in the sector. As of September 2025 the CERPI universe carried commitments near 44.8 billion dollars and a market value near 22.0 billion against cumulative distributions of approximately 1.2 billion. The older domestic CKD format, by contrast, had distributed roughly 17.2 billion against a market value near 14.2 billion. Vintage explains most of that gap and should be stated first, but it does not change the comparison an investment committee makes before approving the next commitment. The third is price, and it is the one Mexican rules have not yet addressed, which is precisely why it deserves attention now rather than later.<\/p>

Section I sets out the arithmetic of the capacity overhang, including the wide and underexamined dispersion between the most and least allocated funds in the system. Section II examines the supply constraint and what it implies about where Mexican institutional capital will actually go. Section III takes up the realization gap. Section IV turns to price, using the Chilean fee ceiling regime as the only working example in the region of what price regulation does to an institutional bid, and asks what its existence implies for anyone selling one product line across both markets. Section V addresses the audience most exposed to the second order effects and least aware of them, the Mexican and United States offshore wealth channel, which is the natural destination for capacity that cannot be placed institutionally. Section VI sets out what follows.<\/p>

The Capacity Overhang<\/strong><\/p>

Start with the size of the pool, because the numbers carry the argument. Mexican retirement savings now represent roughly 22 percent of national GDP, which makes the system the largest single source of institutional capital in Latin America. Figures published by the pension regulator put AFORE assets under management at 438.4 billion dollars as of September 2025, up 85 percent in dollar terms from 237.2 billion in December 2020. Of that increase, roughly 76 percentage points came from peso growth through contributions and returns and about 9 points from currency appreciation, a distinction worth preserving for anyone building a business case, because a repeat of the growth rate partly depends on a repeat of the currency move. The compound annual growth rate over the period is near 13.8 percent in dollars, and sustained at that pace the system would exceed 825 billion dollars by 2030, more than triple its 2020 size. Independent estimates put assets at approximately 500.2 billion dollars by April 2026.<\/p>

Now place the allocation against the permission. At September 2025 the AFOREs held roughly 34.5 billion dollars in structured instruments at market value, about 7.9 percent of the average portfolio. Measured on committed rather than invested capital, equivalent exposure rose to about 16.9 percent, because CKDs and CERPIs together carried commitments near 74.0 billion dollars against a market value near 36.2 billion, a difference partly explained by the participation of other institutional investors such as insurance companies. By April 2026 the market value figure was approximately 39.3 billion, or 7.8 percent of assets, with commitments taking estimated total exposure toward 16.6 percent. Against a 30 percent ceiling, that leaves a gap of roughly 13 percentage points on a commitments basis and more than 22 points on an invested basis. On an asset base approaching 500 billion dollars, the unused headroom on a commitments basis alone runs to something on the order of 65 billion dollars, and it is growing faster than it is being consumed, because the denominator compounds at a double digit rate while the numerator does not.<\/p>

The composition of that headroom matters as much as its size. If roughly two thirds of the 30 percent is available for international deployment, the implied international capacity is around 20 percent of portfolios against an estimated 5.3 percent actually invested internationally. The domestic tranche implies roughly 10 percent against an estimated 3.0 percent invested domestically. Both are underused, but the domestic tranche is underused and moving in the wrong direction, which is the more diagnostic fact.<\/p>

There is a further feature of the Mexican data that receives almost no analytical attention and should. At September 2025 the AFORE with the highest structured allocation stood at 11.4 percent of its portfolio while the lowest stood at 4.8 percent. That is a spread of more than two to one within a single regulatory regime, applied to broadly similar liabilities, under a common supervisor. Regulation is not the explanatory variable, since every fund in the system faces the same ceiling. What differs is institutional conviction and, more concretely, internal capability. Underwriting a private credit sleeve, modelling a capital call schedule, sizing a liquidity buffer against a correlated drawdown, monitoring a position held for a decade and defending a valuation to a board are functions a fund either has staffed or has not. A two to one dispersion is what a capability gap looks like when it is measured in basis points of allocation, and it suggests that the marginal unit of regional allocation in the next three years will be determined less by what the rules permit than by which funds have built the teams to use the permission.<\/p>

For a manager, that dispersion is also a targeting instruction. The funds already near the top of the range are the ones with the internal machinery to evaluate a new strategy without extensive hand holding, and they are also closer to their own internal risk budgets. The funds near the bottom have the most headroom and the least capability, which means the commercial task there is education and infrastructure rather than product presentation. Those are different sales, on different timelines, requiring different people, and treating the system as a single buyer misreads it.<\/p>

Supply: Headroom Is Not a Pipeline<\/strong><\/p>

The most widely made observation about the Mexican shift is the correct one, and it deserves stating without hedging: the composition of the structured book has moved outward because the domestic pipeline cannot absorb the capital at the required standard. This is the constraint that has entered the regional conversation, and the analysis behind it is worth completing.<\/p>

The reason is not a shortage of Mexican projects. It is a shortage of Mexican platforms. Pension capital at this scale cannot underwrite a project; it has to underwrite a manager, and the manager has to have an institutional organisation, a governance structure that survives diligence, an investment team with tenure, a documented and repeatable process, the operational capacity to deploy hundreds of millions of dollars efficiently, and above all a record of having returned money. Deploying at scale is itself a distinct capability, separable from the ability to select good assets, and it is not widely held. In a more selective environment, demonstrated liquidity generation and realized returns have become as important to allocators as the underlying opportunity, and the same discipline is applied to international managers, where commitments have concentrated with organisations combining institutional scale, deep teams and long established records.<\/p>

The vehicle formation data gives the scale mismatch in one line. Across 2025, the Mexican market saw two credit CKDs and ten CERPIs issued, together representing commitments of approximately 2.6 billion dollars. Twelve new vehicles and 2.6 billion of commitments is not a trivial year, but set against a system approaching 500 billion dollars in assets and carrying more than 60 billion dollars of unused capacity on a commitments basis, it is an order of magnitude short of what would be required to close the gap in any reasonable period. The regional picture is consistent. The principal regional industry association recorded 78 Latin America dedicated funds with closes in 2025 and 40 with closes in the first half of 2026, against 636 disclosed private capital transactions in the full year and 300 in the first half. Those are the numbers of a maturing but still thin fund management ecosystem, and they are not the numbers of a market that can absorb a double digit percentage of the region’s institutional savings in domestic form.<\/p>

Three consequences follow, each with a different audience.<\/p>

For international managers, the reading is favourable but narrower than it first appears. The Mexican institutional bid is real, it is large, and the majority of structured capacity remains available for international deployment. But the selectivity that disqualifies subscale domestic platforms applies to foreign ones on the same terms. Access has become easier to obtain and harder to convert. A manager without realized exits in the specific strategy being marketed is not competing on terms; it is competing for a first allocation against a field that has already cleared the evidentiary bar. The practical implication is that the scarce commercial asset is not the meeting, which is now readily available, but the answer to the question in Section III.<\/p>

For domestic managers and for Mexican capital markets policy, the constraint has moved from the demand side to the institution building side, which is slower and considerably less amenable to regulatory action. A supervisor can raise a ceiling in an afternoon. Nobody can legislate a second fund with a realized first fund. One partial response already visible is the accelerating use of exchange listed trust certificate structures since 2024, which have broadened access to private strategies for insurance companies, private banks and other institutional buyers alongside the CKD and CERPI formats the AFOREs traditionally use. Widening the buyer base is genuinely useful, because a domestic pipeline that pension funds alone cannot support at scale may be supportable by a larger and more varied set of institutions, and because a listed format brings identifiability and an observable price to positions that would otherwise be bilateral. It is not, however, a substitute for the underlying manager quality question, and it should not be read as one.<\/p>

For allocators in the wealth channel, the reading is a warning that Section V develops. When institutional capital reduces domestic exposure on quality grounds while regulatory capacity expands, the capital raised in anticipation of that capacity has to find another buyer.<\/p>

Proof: The Realization Gap<\/strong><\/p>

The second replacement constraint does not appear in any regulation. It appears in an investment committee, and in the Mexican data it is visible in a single comparison.<\/p>

As of September 30, 2025 there were 244 CERPIs and 137 CKDs in operation. The CERPIs, used predominantly for international private market exposure, carried a market value of roughly 22.0 billion dollars and commitments of roughly 44.8 billion, against cumulative distributions of approximately 1.2 billion. The CKDs, the older domestic format, carried a market value near 14.2 billion and commitments near 29.2 billion, against cumulative distributions of approximately 17.2 billion, which is to say more than their entire current market value.<\/p>

Vintage explains a great deal of that gap and should be stated first and plainly. The CERPI format is considerably newer, and a portfolio composed largely of recent international commitments would not be expected to have distributed much of anything. Any fair analysis says so. But the practical consequence for allocation decisions is the same regardless of the explanation, because a committee is not comparing formats in the abstract. It is being asked to expand the international sleeve of a book that has, in aggregate, returned on the order of a few cents on each dollar of committed capital, while funding less the domestic format whose cumulative distributions exceed its remaining market value. Whether or not that comparison is analytically fair, it is the comparison that will be made, by people whose own performance is measured and whose decisions are minuted. It explains a substantial part of why declared capacity is not converting into allocation, and it is not a problem that more capacity solves.<\/p>

Two implications are worth drawing out. The first is that the regional discussion of the institutional and retail private markets build out has been overwhelmingly a discussion of access and structure, and comparatively little of it has been a discussion of evidence. The access problem has now been solved several times over, through feeders, listed certificates, evergreen wrappers and lower minimums. The evidence problem takes as long as a fund life takes, and it cannot be accelerated by product design. Any commercial plan that treats the next three years as an access problem is planning for a constraint that has already been relieved.<\/p>

The second is that a manager able to produce a credible realization record specific to the vehicles Mexican institutions actually hold possesses something scarce. There is a meaningful difference between a global composite track record and a distributions history in the CERPI or CKD through which the client’s exposure is held, and the second is what is being asked for. Managers whose regional history consists of commitments rather than realizations should expect the next cycle to be harder than the last, and should be planning now for how they will evidence realization when they have it: consistent reporting of marks against realised outcomes, distribution history at the vehicle level, and a documented explanation of any divergence between the two.<\/p>

Price: The Constraint Not Yet Written Into Mexican Rules<\/strong><\/p>

The third constraint is not currently a Mexican constraint, and this section is included precisely for that reason. Mexico regulates how much an AFORE may hold in structured assets. It does not regulate what the AFORE may pay for them. One market in the region has crossed that line, and because regulatory design in Latin American pension systems tends to travel, and because most managers sell one product line into both markets, the Chilean regime is worth understanding as a preview rather than as a foreign curiosity.<\/p>

The mechanism is simple and severe. The Chilean securities regulator and the pension regulator jointly set a maximum total expense ratio for each category of investment a pension fund may make, and where an underlying vehicle exceeds it, the excess is absorbed by the pension fund manager out of its own revenue rather than by the fund. For the period from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027, the maximum is 2.40 percent for private equity including co-investment, the same for private debt including co-investment, and 3.88 percent for private equity and private debt funds of funds. For alternatives the methodology is transitioning from the ninetieth percentile of observed market fees down to the seventy fifth, with the lower percentile to apply in full from the next annual determination, which is a scheduled and announced tightening rather than a one off calibration. Layered on top, from November 2026 annual aggregate caps apply to the blended underlying fee across each fund type, running from 0.51 percent for the most aggressive fund down to 0.11 percent for the most conservative, in addition to and not instead of the individual vehicle ceilings.<\/p>

Those aggregate figures are the ones to sit with, because they are where the arithmetic becomes binding. A blended underlying fee budget of roughly half a percentage point for an entire portfolio, set against an individual alternatives ceiling of 2.40 percent, implies that alternatives can occupy only a modest share of the portfolio before the aggregate cap binds regardless of what the allocation limit permits. In effect a second and tighter ceiling has been installed, denominated in basis points rather than in percentage allocations. And a separate provision effective April 2026 prohibits pension funds from paying fees to vehicles or managers holding more than 10 percent in specified domestic instruments, subject to defined exceptions, which means a regional or global manager needs to know and evidence its Chilean weight with precision.<\/p>

Four design implications follow, and none is a matter of negotiation.<\/p>

Layered structures are the most exposed. Any format stacking a feeder, a fund of funds and an underlying fund consumes fee budget at three levels for one unit of exposure, in a market where the buyer’s total budget is a published number and the trajectory is downward. Single layer formats, including separately managed accounts, co-investment sleeves and single manager mandates, acquire a regulatory advantage they did not previously have.<\/p>

Fee transparency becomes an eligibility requirement rather than a courtesy, since a manager who cannot report fees, expenses and carried interest to an institutional reporting standard cannot evidence compliance with a ceiling. The ceiling therefore functions as a data requirement as much as a price requirement.<\/p>

Third, the Chilean regime pairs the fee architecture with a performance measurement mechanism that carries its own implications for illiquidity. From April 2027, ten generational funds replace the current five multifunds, and each will be compared monthly against a reference portfolio over a rolling thirty six month window, with results above the upper band earning the manager a retribution and results below the lower band requiring the manager to contribute its own resources to the fund. The bands run from roughly 2.4 to 2.9 percentage points annually, with a wider transitional common band of four percentage points from April 2028 to March 2031. A manager evaluated on that basis, with its own capital at risk, has a rational reason to prefer exposures whose tracking behaviour against a listed reference is predictable, and lagged, smoothed private market valuations are not among them. Notably, the same regime raised alternatives ceilings for the earlier life cycle stages, taking global limits up to roughly 25 percent, while removing the proposed minimum allocation to alternatives at the managers’ own request. More room to hold alternatives, and more freedom to hold none.<\/p>

Fourth, and this is the part that matters for Mexico, the direction of both mechanisms points the same way: toward institutional buyers who need positions that are singly layered, independently valued, identifiable and explicable to a third party. That is not a Chilean preference. It is what any supervised institution converges on once it has to defend a private holding inside a cost budget and a performance framework, and Mexican funds are moving along the same path through their own use of listed certificate formats. A manager who redesigns for the Chilean constraint is, largely by accident, building the product the Mexican institutional buyer will ask for next.<\/p>

The honest caveat is that Mexico has not adopted a fee ceiling and may never do so. This section is not a prediction. It is an argument that the pricing question is arriving through commercial pressure whether or not it arrives through regulation, and that the industry’s regional plans have generally assumed institutional capital in Latin America is large, patient and reasonably price insensitive. In one of the region’s two largest pools that assumption is now false as a matter of law. Assuming it holds indefinitely in the other is a choice, not an observation.<\/p>

Where the Unplaced Capacity Goes<\/strong><\/p>

This section is addressed to the readers with no exposure to AFORE mandates and considerable exposure to their second order effects.<\/p>

Consider the position of a global alternatives manager that spent three years building Mexican institutional distribution against a rising allocation limit. The limit rose. The allocation did not. The domestic opportunity set it was expected to help fund cannot absorb the capital at the required standard, the international vehicles through which its capacity would be delivered have not yet distributed enough to make the next commitment straightforward, and its own fundraising targets have not been revised downward.<\/p>

There is one adjacent channel in the same corridor where the buyer base is large, growing faster than the institutional pool, and subject to no price regulation whatsoever. Mexican and broader Latin American private wealth, much of it held offshore, is the natural destination for capacity that cannot be placed institutionally on acceptable terms. Roughly a trillion dollars of Latin American wealth is held outside investors’ countries of origin, channeled principally into United States platforms and international structures. That channel is already the industry’s declared growth priority, evergreen and semi-liquid structures built substantially for it had grown to roughly 530 billion dollars globally by 2025, approximately double their level three years earlier, and the runway is long: advisory model portfolios across Latin America and the United States offshore channel held around 89 percent of assets in traditional equities and fixed income in the first half of 2026, leaving roughly 11 percent for alternatives, real assets and cash combined.<\/p>

None of that makes the wealth channel a residual buyer of poor product, and it would be wrong to read it that way. Much of what reaches offshore advisers is the same strategy from the same manager in a wrapper better suited to a private client than a pension fund, and the growth of the channel reflects genuine client demand rather than manager desperation. But it does mean two things that a Mexican private bank, broker dealer, family office or offshore adviser should hold in mind.<\/p>

The first is a diligence point, and it is close to free. The institutional buyer in the same market is applying a set of tests, and in Mexico’s case the relevant data is public. It is asking what the vehicle has actually distributed rather than what the strategy has returned. It is asking whether the manager has the organisation and the record to deploy at scale. It is measuring total cost of ownership across every layer of the structure. An adviser has no supervisor setting those tests, which means the adviser sets them. The single most useful question available to a wealth allocator in this market is whether the AFOREs, looking at the same manager, are increasing or reducing their commitment, and on what grounds. Where the institutional answer turns on a distributions record, that answer is relevant to a private client too, because the client is the one waiting for the distribution.<\/p>

The second is structural. The features that make a private exposure workable for a supervised institution are largely the features that make it workable for a cross border private client: a single fee layer rather than three, an identifiable and custody eligible position rather than a bilateral commitment recorded in a subscription document, an independent valuation, and reporting to a standard a third party can audit. Note based formats that bring private strategies into identifiable, custody eligible form, including the private note and exchange traded note structures used in the offshore market, exist in part to solve exactly that administrability problem, and Mexico’s expanding use of exchange listed certificate structures to widen its domestic institutional buyer base is the same idea approached from the other side. The convergence is worth noticing, because it means product design work done for one channel is not wasted on the other.<\/p>

There is also a competitive point for the wealth channel’s own benefit. Mexican institutions are building the capability to select managers, negotiate structures and monitor decade long positions, and the internal dispersion described in Section I shows how unevenly that capability is currently distributed and therefore how much of it is being built. Latin American pension funds and local investment vehicles already held approximately 195 billion dollars in cross border exchange traded funds as of March 2026, with Mexican vehicles accounting for nearly half, which indicates how much of the region’s institutional capital is already deployed internationally through professional intermediation. Those institutions are becoming more discriminating buyers of private exposure, not less. A wealth platform whose alternatives selection process is less rigorous than the pension fund across the city is exposed on the one dimension clients eventually measure.<\/p>

What Follows<\/strong><\/p>

For asset managers building or defending a Mexican institutional franchise, the reordering is easy to state and expensive to implement. Allocation headroom should come out of the top of the commercial thesis, because headroom is no longer scarce and will be less scarce next year. In its place go three questions. What has this specific vehicle, in the format the Mexican investor will actually hold, distributed, and if the answer is very little, what is the credible account of why and when that changes. Does this organisation have the demonstrated capacity to deploy at the scale a fund with tens of billions of dollars needs to write in a single ticket, and can it evidence that rather than assert it. And what is the total fee load of this structure, layer by layer, on the assumption that the buyer will eventually measure it against a budget rather than a market convention. Managers whose answer to the first is a global composite and whose answer to the third depends on multi manager layering will find Mexican institutional access easy to obtain and no easier to convert.<\/p>

Segmentation deserves a specific mention, because the two to one dispersion in Section I is actionable in a way that aggregate system statistics are not. The funds at the upper end of the allocation range are sophisticated buyers approaching their own internal budgets, and the commercial task there is differentiation on strategy and terms. The funds at the lower end hold most of the unused capacity and least of the capability, and the commercial task there is closer to institutional development: helping build the analytical and monitoring apparatus that makes an allocation defensible internally. Managers who invest in the second, at partner level and without an immediate mandate attached, are underwriting the growth of the buyer base itself, which is a slower and more durable position than competing for the next commitment from the funds everyone already covers.<\/p>

For the AFOREs and their advisers, the useful discipline is to separate the constraints and be explicit about which is actually operating in any given declined allocation. Declining because the domestic pipeline lacks institutional platforms is a different decision from declining because the format has not distributed, and both differ from declining because the internal team to monitor the position does not exist. Aggregated under a general caution, the reluctance looks like conservatism when it is often a specific and addressable objection, and the third of those is the only one the fund itself fully controls.<\/p>

For wealth managers in the Mexican and United States offshore corridor, the operative recommendation is to import the institutional tests rather than to be the channel that does not apply them. Realization history in the specific vehicle rather than the strategy, total cost of ownership across every layer, identifiability and independent valuation, and reporting to an auditable standard. These are not institutional formalities. They are the questions a large and well informed buyer in the same market has concluded are the ones that matter, and they cost nothing to ask.<\/p>

The wider reading is about how regulatory advocacy works and what it can achieve. The industry asked Mexico for room and got it, through a higher structured ceiling with a domestic orientation designed to finance the local economy. That was the achievable ask, because a limit is a number in a rule. What the industry did not ask for, and now needs, is a domestic pipeline of institutional quality platforms, a body of realized distributions in the vehicles Mexican investors actually hold, internal capability distributed more evenly than two to one across the system, and a fee architecture that survives a buyer who has started to measure it. None of those four is a number in a rule. Each takes years, each is being built now or not at all, and none of them will be delivered by the next increase in the limit. The capacity overhang in Mexico’s pension portfolios is not evidence of regulatory failure. It is a measure of how much of the remaining work was never regulatory to begin with.<\/p>

Fuentes<\/strong><\/p>

  • Funds Society. “AFOREs: More Capacity to Invest, But Where Are the Local Opportunities?” Opinion column by Arturo Hanono (structured asset limits, CKD and CERPI allocation shifts, April 2026 estimates). July 24, 2026. https:\/\/www.fundssociety.com\/en\/opinion\/afores-more-capacity-to-invest-but-where-are-the-local-opportunities\/<\/li>
  • Funds Society. “Retirement Savings Consolidate Their Weight in the Economy: They Now Amount to 22% of GDP.” Column by Arturo Hanono (CONSAR data as of September 2025, vehicle counts, commitments and cumulative distributions). November 11, 2025. https:\/\/www.fundssociety.com\/en\/opinion\/retirement-savings-consolidate-their-weight-in-the-economy-they-now-amount-to-22-of-gdp\/<\/li>
  • Comisi\u00f3n Nacional del Sistema de Ahorro para el Retiro (CONSAR). Statistical publications on AFORE assets under management and investment in structured instruments. https:\/\/www.gob.mx\/consar<\/li>
  • LAVCA. “Mid-Year 2026 Industry Data & Analysis” and “2026 Industry Data & Analysis” (Latin America dedicated fund closes and disclosed transaction counts). https:\/\/www.lavca.org\/research\/mid-year-2026-lavca-industry-data-analysis\/<\/li>
  • Alessandri Attorneys at Law. “2026-2027 New Maximum TERs for Chilean Pension Fund Investments” (joint CMF and Superintendencia de Pensiones determination for July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027; underlying fee prohibitions effective April 1, 2026; aggregate caps effective November 1, 2026). June 15, 2026. https:\/\/alessandri.legal\/en\/2026-2027-new-maximum-ters-for-chilean-pension-fund-investments\/<\/li>
  • Ch\u00f3cale. “Superintendencia de Pensiones flexibiliza reglas de inversi\u00f3n para los nuevos fondos generacionales” (definitive generational funds investment regime, effective April 1, 2027). September 1, 2026. https:\/\/chocale.cl\/2026\/09\/superintendencia-de-pensiones-flexibiliza-reglas-de-inversion-para-los-nuevos-fondos-generacionales\/<\/li>
  • ETF Express. “Latin American investors turn to cross-border global ETFs: Cerulli Associates.” August 26, 2026. https:\/\/etfexpress.com\/2026\/08\/26\/latin-american-investors-turn-to-cross-border-global-etfs-cerulli-associates\/<\/li>
  • Funds Society. “Traditional Assets and Flexible Fixed Income: The Preferred Investments of Latin American and US Offshore Advisors” (Natixis Investment Managers Latin American and U.S. Offshore Advisor Portfolio Barometer, first half 2026). 2026. https:\/\/www.fundssociety.com\/en\/news\/private-banking\/traditional-assets-and-flexible-fixed-income-the-preferred-investments-of-latin-american-and-us-offshore-advisors\/<\/li>
  • Funds Society. “The Great Latin American Wealth Exodus: More Than $1 Trillion Seeks Refuge Outside the Region.” https:\/\/www.fundssociety.com\/en\/news\/business\/the-great-latin-american-wealth-exodus-more-than-1-trillion-seeks-refuge-outside-the-region\/<\/li>
  • MSCI. “The Ascendance and Implications of Evergreen Funds in Private Markets.” https:\/\/www.msci.com\/research-and-insights\/blog-post\/the-ascendance-and-implications-of-evergreen-funds-in-private-markets<\/li>
  • OECD. “Annual Survey of Investment Regulation of Pension Providers 2025.” https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/content\/dam\/oecd\/en\/topics\/policy-sub-issues\/asset-backed-pensions\/2025-Annual-Survey-of-Investment-Regulation-of-Pension-Providers.pdf<\/li><\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    Descargo de responsabilidad:<\/strong><\/p>

    1. This white paper is produced by LYNK Markets for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute investment, legal, tax, or financial advice, or a recommendation of any security or strategy. Figures are drawn from the cited third-party sources and reflect information available as of July 2026. This document is intended for institutional investors, qualified purchasers, and financial professionals only.<\/em><\/p><\/li>

    2. El contenido de esta entrada del blog tiene \u00fanicamente fines informativos y no pretende ser un consejo de inversi\u00f3n, una oferta o solicitud de una oferta de compra o venta, ni una recomendaci\u00f3n, respaldo o patrocinio de ning\u00fan valor, empresa o fondo. La informaci\u00f3n proporcionada no constituye asesoramiento de inversi\u00f3n, asesoramiento financiero, asesoramiento comercial, o cualquier otro tipo de asesoramiento y usted no debe tratar ninguno de los contenidos como tal. LYNK Markets no recomienda que ning\u00fan valor sea comprado, vendido o mantenido por usted. Haga su propia diligencia debida y consulte a su asesor financiero antes de tomar cualquier decisi\u00f3n de inversi\u00f3n.<\/span><\/em><\/li><\/ol>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Private Markets Mexico’s 30% Alternatives Ceiling Why AFORE Capacity Keeps […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":167694,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167692","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nMexico\u2019s 30% Alternatives Ceiling | LYNK Markets<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Mexico\u2019s AFOREs can now allocate up to 30% to structured assets, yet allocations remain well below the limit. Explore the supply, realization and pricing constraints shaping private markets.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"es_ES\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mexico\u2019s 30% Alternatives Ceiling | LYNK Markets\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Mexico\u2019s AFOREs can now allocate up to 30% to structured assets, yet allocations remain well below the limit. Explore the supply, realization and pricing constraints shaping private markets.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynk Markets\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100089224225885\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-08T14:44:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-08T14:46:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Blog-080926.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"864\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"468\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Daniela Huertas\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@CapitalLynk\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@CapitalLynk\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Escrito por\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Daniela Huertas\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tiempo de lectura\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutos\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Daniela Huertas\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0067f7a613250e96e97072d0d95e522f\"},\"headline\":\"Mexico\u2019s 30% Alternatives Ceiling\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-08T14:44:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-08T14:46:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling\"},\"wordCount\":5330,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Blog-080926.png\",\"articleSection\":[\"Uncategorized\"],\"inLanguage\":\"es\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling\",\"name\":\"Mexico\u2019s 30% Alternatives Ceiling | LYNK Markets\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Blog-080926.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-08T14:44:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-08T14:46:28+00:00\",\"description\":\"Mexico\u2019s AFOREs can now allocate up to 30% to structured assets, yet allocations remain well below the limit. Explore the supply, realization and pricing constraints shaping private markets.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Blog-080926.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Blog-080926.png\",\"width\":864,\"height\":468},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mexico\u2019s 30% Alternatives Ceiling\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Lynk Capital Markets\",\"description\":\"One stop solution for portfolio strategies and alternative investments\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"es\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Lynk Capital Markets\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/02\\\/lynk-logo.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/02\\\/lynk-logo.svg\",\"width\":1907,\"height\":1010,\"caption\":\"Lynk Capital Markets\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/profile.php?id=100089224225885\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/CapitalLynk\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/lynk-capital-markets\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0067f7a613250e96e97072d0d95e522f\",\"name\":\"Daniela Huertas\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/924dc788ae09b9d700e26f4752626b679d6f18003cc96674fc64139a4d93007a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/924dc788ae09b9d700e26f4752626b679d6f18003cc96674fc64139a4d93007a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/924dc788ae09b9d700e26f4752626b679d6f18003cc96674fc64139a4d93007a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Daniela Huertas\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lynkcm.com\\\/es\\\/author\\\/danihuertas\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mexico\u2019s 30% Alternatives Ceiling | LYNK Markets","description":"Mexico\u2019s AFOREs can now allocate up to 30% to structured assets, yet allocations remain well below the limit. Explore the supply, realization and pricing constraints shaping private markets.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling\/","og_locale":"es_ES","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mexico\u2019s 30% Alternatives Ceiling | LYNK Markets","og_description":"Mexico\u2019s AFOREs can now allocate up to 30% to structured assets, yet allocations remain well below the limit. Explore the supply, realization and pricing constraints shaping private markets.","og_url":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling\/","og_site_name":"Lynk Markets","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100089224225885","article_published_time":"2026-09-08T14:44:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-09-08T14:46:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":864,"height":468,"url":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Blog-080926.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Daniela Huertas","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@CapitalLynk","twitter_site":"@CapitalLynk","twitter_misc":{"Escrito por":"Daniela Huertas","Tiempo de lectura":"24 minutos"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling"},"author":{"name":"Daniela Huertas","@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/#\/schema\/person\/0067f7a613250e96e97072d0d95e522f"},"headline":"Mexico\u2019s 30% Alternatives Ceiling","datePublished":"2026-09-08T14:44:03+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-08T14:46:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling"},"wordCount":5330,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Blog-080926.png","articleSection":["Uncategorized"],"inLanguage":"es"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling","url":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling","name":"Mexico\u2019s 30% Alternatives Ceiling | LYNK Markets","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Blog-080926.png","datePublished":"2026-09-08T14:44:03+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-08T14:46:28+00:00","description":"Mexico\u2019s AFOREs can now allocate up to 30% to structured assets, yet allocations remain well below the limit. Explore the supply, realization and pricing constraints shaping private markets.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"es","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es","@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Blog-080926.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Blog-080926.png","width":864,"height":468},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/mexico-30-percent-alternatives-ceiling#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mexico\u2019s 30% Alternatives Ceiling"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/","name":"Lynk Capital Markets","description":"Una soluci\u00f3n integral para estrategias de cartera e inversiones alternativas","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"es"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/#organization","name":"Lynk Capital Markets","url":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es","@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/lynk-logo.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/lynk-logo.svg","width":1907,"height":1010,"caption":"Lynk Capital Markets"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100089224225885","https:\/\/x.com\/CapitalLynk","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lynk-capital-markets\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/#\/schema\/person\/0067f7a613250e96e97072d0d95e522f","name":"Daniela Huertas","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/924dc788ae09b9d700e26f4752626b679d6f18003cc96674fc64139a4d93007a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/924dc788ae09b9d700e26f4752626b679d6f18003cc96674fc64139a4d93007a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/924dc788ae09b9d700e26f4752626b679d6f18003cc96674fc64139a4d93007a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Daniela Huertas"},"url":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/author\/danihuertas"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167692","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167692"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167692\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":167697,"href":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167692\/revisions\/167697"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/167694"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynkcm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}